User talk:Ericorbit/Archive24

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Hi! Didn't know who else to turn to. So, ever since yesterday a few users have been incessantly adding some Steve Robson guy as a producer in Turn It Up (Pixie Lott album), especially in the track "Here We Go Again", which was actually produced by RedOne. These users were The Bluer Guillemot (talk · contribs), TBGOMG (talk · contribs) and 89.100.30.5 (talk · contribs). Today TBGOMG restored the info regarding Steve Robson, which I reverted, but right after that 89.100.30.5 restored it once again—as far as I know, this can be seen as sock puppetry, in case they're the same person. Any thoughts on this matter? Thanks! SnapSnap 20:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sock and IP blocked, article semi-protected, The Bluer Guillemot warned.—Kww(talk) 21:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

89.100.30.5 (talk · contribs) is back, making the same vandalistic edits again. [1][2][3] SnapSnap 17:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eric do you think this article passes WP:NSONGS? I believed it passes hence made the article again. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has changed since Talk:Dance_in_the_Dark#Redirect. Is was as notable then as it is now. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please stop trolling through my edits? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What happenes with my edit on Hot 100 number ones 2009? Sorry but the correct form is Jay-Z FEATURING Alicia Keys, not AND. So be careful with your message of cancel my account. Do you hear me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidReyAlvite (talk • contribs) 22:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so with Jay Sean "Down" you mustn't put "featuring Lil Wayne" becasue it doesn't apears where apears Jay Z and Alicia Keys. And if you go to Billboard and you watch the singles as they are in the list, Alicia Keys is not mentioned, so you are wrong. And if must to be AND, can you explain me how is it posible that in the wikipedia page of Empire State of Mind is written FEAUTRING. I corrected it but people like you told me about cancel my account. Is ridiculous... —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidReyAlvite (talk • contribs) 22:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not cancel, lock sorry, but is unjust because if i'm wrong is because of a good intention (not vandalism as the message told me) It's true, sorry. I looked on the tool and there appear Jay-Z alone. But where you show seems to appear a plus, not and AND, and in other cases like the present number 15, with Justin Bieber and Sean Kingston, is a &. Can you explain me that? I'm from Spain so is possible that is an american code that I don't understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidReyAlvite (talk • contribs) 23:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidReyAlvite (talk • contribs) 23:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonny, Just wanted to let you that earlier in the year you encountered User talk:RyanG222 and made at least one warning on his talk page relating to charts on song articles and/or disruption to discographies. RyanG222 was previously blocked for this and promised not to do it again. However he has been engaged in such edits again and has recieved a final warning. If you encounter this type of edit from the user again please can you inform me? I will be preparing a WP:ANI as this user has a long term habit of abusing/disrupting discography pages. Thanks. Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had to report User talk:RyanG222

• Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic the distuptive editing of discographies and vandalism by RyanG222. Thank you. — Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i think we have a sock... User talk:Sllewellyn7, they're making very similar edits to the same articles Mister sparky (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F47890 (talk · contribs). First in Under the Sheets: [4][5], then in Starry Eyed (song) [6][7], and finally in Guns and Horses [8]. SnapSnap 14:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not block everyone that undoes deletion of the singlechart macros as a sock, please. Those macros are valuable, useful, and should not be undone on a whim. If we can get a decent critical mass of them, we can use them to nearly eliminate vandalism on singles positions. If people keep removing them without reason or cause, that can never happen.—Kww(talk) 14:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kww's statement, however I also am a little bit wary of a user who just began editing yesterday and already knows the proper way to add macros to articles. I don't think the average "new" editor would know anything about that unless they had/have a previous account. Perhaps a checkuser request? - eo (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RyanG222. Be warned, however: should he come back as a sock, I will stand by his edits that removed manual charting from articles.—Kww(talk) 17:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TheMentalist456 (talk · contribs) [9] (claims to be named Ryan in his user page) and 83.53.182.9 (talk · contribs) [10]. Mind you, it does not concern the use of chart macros, but the sockpuppetry itself. SnapSnap 17:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And WeedDJ (talk · contribs) as well. Again, it's the sockpuppetry itself. Besides, he never uses an edit summary. SnapSnap 21:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already reported. - eo (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TheCakeBoy (talk · contribs) hasn't learned his lesson yet. SnapSnap 20:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Eric, can you tell me your opinion on This user and if he can be blocked? Jayy008 (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ericorbit - I appreciate, as I'm sure others do, your semi-protect of this page given all the recent vandalism. I've tried to monitor the all-time milestones sections, but it's hard to verify some claims. My current concern is that someone slipped in a claim that Jackie Gleason in 1953 and Glenn Miller (undated) had extremely long runs with albums in the top ten. Gleason would have been at the very dawn of the charts, and Miller of course was dead before Billboard even had album charts. I can't find any sourcing that verifies an extensive top ten presence for these two artists from the inception of the weekly lists in 1956 on. I don't want to rv simply on the basis of my suspicion that these aren't accurate - because most of the milestones section is casually sourced (if at all) - I've added sources for Elvis Presley and the Kingston Trio, but most of the rest are generally sourced from Bronson or Joel Whitburn generically. Now, Whitburn is coming out in July of this year with an updated edition of his Top Pop Albums, 1955-2009, and that may end up being the most WP:RS for these historical questions. Until then - I'm wondering if you know of any reliable verification for these pre-1956 claims. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have the prior edition of that Whitburn book; that also begins with 1956. I personally do not think that the Gleason and Miller items belong there and upon a closer look, I don't even know where that top-ten section came from. For now I am going to remove it until a source is found and feel free to put it back in if you find one. - eo (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one's going to be trouble, I can tell. Blocked 86.132.109.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for a week. It's CharlieJS13 evading his block. The way to tell is that he edit wars over songwriting credits (cannot accept listing Stefani Germanotti as the writer of a Lady Gaga song) and also edits racing articles.—Kww(talk) 02:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will keep an eye on it - easy to spot. - eo (talk) 13:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Slewellyn7 is related. Not a great editor, but I haven't caught him doing anything vandalistic. WeedDJ is possible. Do you have any candidates for filling in the gap between March 20 and May 18 that I can look at?—Kww(talk) 21:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've been editing long enough to know that there's a simple rule : previewing before saving. Yet, you generated a "Cite error: Closing missing" in a text here [[11]]. Do not blatantly spoil my contributions and efforts. This kind of actions is disruptive. You wrote : "wikilink fixes. song links should not point to a page for an album". I add. On wikipedia, policy and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive - most of them note that they are a preferred model and there are exceptions. The nutshell at WP:MUSTARD notes there may be exceptions. In fact, I put "song links to a page for an album" because it avoids to make a repetition in a sentence by having to put this kind of useless words "this song comes from this album". This way, it gives a better readability. This also represents a gain of time for people who make research to know from which album this track comes from. You wrote : "do not just blatantly revert the cleanup efforts". That's rich as these two pages have been entirely re-written by myself from 3 years. I don't take your position as valuable as you completely lack of tact by using formulas as "edits disruptive". That's amusing from someone who spoilt a page. I don't give you reason and you'll have to convince user "less heard than you". Your message and this whole drama thing you created is without any importance regarding the content of these biographies. Your behaviour sticks out like a sore thumb. So spare me time, Do not post on my talk page anymore, it's useless. If you want to make your point valid, put your position in the discussion page of the Banshee article" and ask the opinion of the un-partial user "less heard than you". Note that I've always won my battles against spoilers. Isn't Beyonce and shakira better acts for you :) Carliertwo (talk) 19 may 2010 17:44

As I have stated many times: if I see mistakes, I'll correct them... yes, even if you make them. I suggest you read WP:OWN, this is not the first time you've lashed out at anyone who dares to edit your work. You are not the ultimate authority on Siouxsie Sioux. - eo (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eric, just wondering if Hugom2c (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should be blocked for this edit which is a breach of the final warning given by you and i earlier this month because it is unsourced inflation of chart certificates? Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not inflating the sales everything opposite am taking them to the certified sales. I'm tottaly agree that the article be blocked to stop the constant movement of the real sales

She tweeted something about an album that may come out in September, and now all of her articles are getting filled with TBAs and tweets. I've already reverted enough times that people will see me as abusing my admin powers if I go ahead and protect. Special:Contributions/4.255.41.153 gives a pretty good list of the problem area: can you look over the situation and semiprotect the lot for a month if you think it's justified?—Kww(talk) 01:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted a couple of things; I dont think semi-protecting would be abuse at all, if the TBA stuff continues. I'll keep an eye on this. - eo (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this press release by Billboard, Lady Gaga achieved her 7th top 10 single with "Alejandro." She has only released one album so far (The Fame, which was expanded last year). So why did you revert my edit on the Billboard chart achievements page?75.142.54.211 (talk) 05:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry (again). I read that Katy Perry Hits #1 but then I understood that was in the digital chart. Sorry, I will more carefull next time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidReyAlvite (talk • contribs) 11:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like this.—Kww(talk) 20:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bot that takes care of it has been broken for a while. It's broken so often that I always manually list.—Kww(talk) 20:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ericorbit, a sample is also a kind of cover, see In the Air Tonight and because the sample is in the Air Tonite mentions: Please no revert.

--188.194.88.221 (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A sample is not the same thing as a cover version. "Sunchyme" is not "Life in a Northern Town". The best thing to do would be to make a new article for "Sunchyme"... the song is definitely notable enough per WP:NSONGS. - eo (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After that discussion two years ago, we also had several exchanges on our respective talk page. In fact, it was understood in the end by you and other people that this picture could be replaced by another one if a new free photography was brought on wikipedia commons. You stated it to me here back in November 2008 and I dig it up below to not distort your thoughts.

link to the source of your post.

Statement : "However I, as well as Wesley and JD554, have said before in discussions with you that the Siouxsie photo can be replaced if another suitable pic is found that is a free image. - eo Ericorbit 20:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)".

That's what finally happened in march 2009. Thus, this picture was withdrawn and replaced by another one on the SATB page. So, I respected the consensus / mutual agreement we had with the other SATB users. Carliertwo (talk) 14 june 2010 17:44

Billboard said so themselves here. http://www.billboard.com/#/column/chartbeat/ask-billboard-is-idol-ruining-rock-1004072914.story?page=2

"As for one of her favorite artists, Donna Summer has totaled 13 No. 1s on Dance/Club Play Songs.

You are correct that Joel Whitburn's book through 2003 lists 12 No. 1s, and that she added three more in 2008-09. However, Whitburn's research includes chart data from the publication Record World, not Billboard, from March 29, 1975 through August 21, 1976, after which Billboard introduced the magazine's "first national chart, called National Disco Action Top 30." (Billboard dance charts from inception on Oct. 26, 1974, through March 22, 1975, comprised a rotation of city-specific hits).

Summer's first two No. 1s in Whitburn's book - "Love to Love You Baby" (1975) and "Try Me, I Know We Can Make It" (1976) - are based on Record World archives, not Billboard, so her Billboard No. 1 count on what is now known as Dance/Club Play Songs stands at 13" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.19.107.88 (talk) 10:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, this is Gary Trust's column, however it is explained in the Wikipedia article, as well as in the individual by-year number-ones pages, that (for the sake of consistency), Record World data is used for a short period of time. The footnote shown explains the 15 total for Summer. - eo (talk) 10:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I received a warning about vandalism from you today(Monday, June 28th 2010 at approximately 10pm EST). I didn't vandlize or attempt to vandalize any part of this website. I have no idea what page I am suspected of vandalizing and would appreciate it if you would clarify this matter for me. You can reach me at [email protected] if you feel inclinded to respond.

If I did something it was inadvertant. I would not intentionally try to disrupt the flow of information here as it is a valuable resource.208.103.154.148 (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of having Category:Billboard 200 number-one albums? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to me - kinda surprised there isn't one already. - eo (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we make it then? You take 1990-2000 and I'll take from 2000-2010 to add the category. Then we'll move on to the rest. :D --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure... I may be a bit slow this weekend - got family in town visiting - but I'll do what I can and finish up next week if necessary. - eo (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like attempts have been made already: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (record charts)##1 albums categories - eo (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Breakin' Dishes. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Breakin' Dishes. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You must provide a secondary, reliable source that passes WP:RS in order to verify this information. Otherwise, your edits will be reverted. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are right there dude, if Billboard itself isn't enough for you then may as well remove all chart information from all song articles. You're being a bit ridiculous about this. - eo (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EricO - little problem brewing over at Billboard 200 again. This time, and editor named User:CrazyInSane is trying to re-name the "Holiday Album" section as "Christmas albums." This is monumentally insignificant - except that Billboard itself quit using that term in 1994 and only used it sporadically in its history. Crazy's edit summary says it all : "regardless of the terminology used officially, they are Christmas albums, as officially acknowledged by Billboard 200 until 1994. The Wiki article "holiday album" redirects to Christmas music) (undo) ". We're at 3 rvs and need an administrator to step in - know of anyone who works in music? regards, Sensei48 (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, how are you? I was wandering if you could help me. Like most TV series on here that character page is called "List of..." but this is all wrong for the Vampire Diaries. Could you please move "Characters in The Vampire diaries" to "List of The Vampire Diaries characters" please. and delete "List of The Vampire Diaries (tv series) Characters" there's too many and it only needs to have the one I asked. Thank you. Jayy008 (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. Sorry I didn't get to it sooner. = eo (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Eo, highly appreciated! Jayy008 (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

heyaaa, hows you? i got Pet Shop Boys discography promoted to featured list, woop woop! thanks for your help. anyways, could you take a look at a few things? i've been having some problems with User:Mastermindofmusic, and another editor made me away on my talkpage that he has lots of socks. i made a discussion about one here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/86.163.246.242. but the other user pointed out that there's lots of them here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KirkleyHigh/Archive. could you take a look and see if there's anything you can do? thanks! :) Mister sparky (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit summaries for removing the singles charts/tables for these article, you cited WP:CHARTS as the policy to support the edits. But where does it say singles charts cant be included? Dan56 (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that info belongs in an album's article. Singles chart stats can go into the article(s) for the song, and/or they are already on OutKast's discography page. Seems rather redundant to me. Additionally, a lot of the charts there were excessive U.S. component charts which shouldn't really be there per WP:CHARTS anyway. If its a huge deal to people then I suppose they can go back, as long as the tables are formatted correctly (not as they were). - eo (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more watching. If I was forced to bet, I'd bet on Excuseme99, but I don't think there's enough to go on yet.—Kww(talk) 15:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Popmusickid (talk · contribs) keeps changing genres inaccurately in Kerli pages without giving an explanation at all, even when they are sourced. This user was given the final warning after being warned several times, but still won't seem to stop. SnapSnap 18:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any reasons as to why to delete constructive pages created by blocked or banned users (G5)? Isn't it just better to keep them instead of doing the aftermath work? It would save more time to do other constructive stuff, I mean. Thanks, /HeyMid (contributions) 15:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a banned user with many accounts, new ones being created constantly. I'm reverting and deleting based on Wikipedia:BAN#Bans_apply_to_all_editing.2C_good_or_bad as well as the sections shown below that one on the policy page. That said, if any of these reversals bother you let me know, I can hold off for now. - eo (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, join the discussion here. Max24(talk) 20:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't made that anonymous edit, and will not admit that I accuse without proof! Vítor&R (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this immediately! You cann't accuse me without any evidence! Vítor&R (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you crazy? You cann't accuse someone without evidence, be ashamed and and desist from being administrator. Before involving my name in your follies, first examine the evidence and make a check if you want. Vítor&R (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not crazy. You have a long history of edit warring and have been blocked 5 times in the past. An IP address comes along and makes an identical edit as you [12], and has a history of editing Rihanna and R&B articles [13], right after I left a message on your talk page, asking you to discuss your edits before reverting again [14]. Do you really need me to request a checkuser on this? - eo (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I want, you're nobody to make such speculations, I demand that you stop! This is not my home wiki, in fact as you can see, in my contributions, I've been out all day. Don't wrap my name in your follie, in addition, the IP has edited pages in that I never edited it, as B.o.B. for example. Stop your nagging and leave me in peace. Vítor&R (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think to clear the air and avoid any more disruption, an SPI would be advisable here. Rodhullandemu 15:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]